“Wild but edible and nutritious!”– Exploring new (and old) ways to … · NWFPs, hence the potential for future NWFP development. •NWFP development goes beyond the forest

Thursday, 25 May, 2017

11:00-12:30

Ethiopia Room (C285)

All staff are welcome

“Wild but edible and nutritious!”– Exploring new (and old) ways to contribute to the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition and the SDGs

Hidden values? Undisclosed potential?:

Forging NWFPs in Policies An overview of NWFPs in national policies

Giulia Muir, Simona Sorrenti (Forest Products & Statistics Team)

Thais Linhares-Juvenal, Irina Buttoud, Jorge Benitez, AnastasiiaKraskovska, Giulia Corradini (Forest Governance & Economics Team)

What do policies have to do with NWFPs?

• Key message: clear, precise and coordinatedpolicy frameworks concerning NWFPs have the potential to create favourable conditions for their sustainable use through promoting value chains, rural and community development, and ensure food security with the added bonus of climate change mitigation

Background Objectives Methodology Findings Conclusions

Definitions…• “NWFPs consist of goods of biological origin other

than wood, derived from forests, other wooded land and trees outside forests.” (FAO, 1999)

• NWFPs include: (1) wild products; (2) managed products; (3) cultivated products.

• Includes: mushrooms, fruits, nuts, herbs, aromatic plants, game), fibres (used in construction, clothing or handcrafts), resins, gums, saps, and products used for medicinal, cosmetic or cultural scopes.


BrazilProd value (1,000 USD)

Açaí 144,269

Cashew nuts 1,473

Brazil nuts 32,250

Erva-mate 118,949

Mangaba (fruto) 473

Palmito 4,324

Pinhăo (fruto) 4,273

Pequi 6,360

Umbu (fruto) 3,048

Chilean Export value (1,000 USD)

Forest mushrooms12,066

Frutos maqui 1,473

Canada major food forest products

Maple syup, wild blueberry, wild ginseng, fiddlehead ferns

Maple products represent a $354 million dollar industry

China Export value (1,000 USD)

Pine nuts272,206

Mushrooms 56,278

Bamboo shoots 315,050

Ghana forest-based food

Cola nuts

Bush meat valuefor annual domestic consumption: US$ 210 – 350 million

Gum arabic

Edible leaves

Edible seeds

Honey

Snails

Mushrooms

Bush meat

European Wild forest product consumption

Wild mushrooms, truffles, berries, nuts, asparagus, medicinal and aromatic plants

-91.5 % households have consumed WFPs-25% households across Europe picked WFPs -18.83% household picked wild mushrooms

NWFP consumption and production is a global phenomenon

Background

Star-Tree: “Multipurpose Trees and Non-Wood Forest Products: A Challenge and Opportunity”: A pan-European project to support rural development• Supports sustainable management, use and

commercialization of NWFPs• -Rural economy development• -10 countries, 2 candidate countries, 4 sub-national

regions across Europe• -Investigated harvesting, management, trade, use and

promotion of NWFP• -The FAO led work looked at coordination between policy

and regulation at EU, national and sub-national levels



A) Sectoral policies

B) Non-sectoral policies and legislation

a. Policies and agreements related to forests;

b. Biodiversity and endangered species conventions;

c. Agricultural and rural development policies and financial instruments.

European Commission website, specific websites of the conventions and agreements.

Value chain approach research in all the sectors

FAOLEX database, EUR-lex databases. General keywords and terms for each category . Categorization using the EU “Summaries of EU legislation” website. For each relevant category of legislation, the main actors along the NWFP value chain were linked.

Methodology• Policies and legislation related to NWFPs in 76 countries analysed (STARTREE + EECA+LAC)• NWFP sector in general and specific categories : bark/cork, berries, fruits/nuts,

mushrooms/truffles, hunting/game

Findings: Sectoral policies in EU

• At EU level, there are no policies or legislation specifically and exclusively targeting NWFPs

• However, the recognition of the ecologic, economic and social role of NWFP and the willingness to promote them is highlighted in different European and International policies and agreements related to forests (EU Forest Strategy, EU Forest Action Plan, Forest Europe).

• All countries have direct/indirect reference to NWFPs in the strategic objectives of their forest policies. (Latvia, only hunting)

• Some countries: NWFP reference in the sub-national forest policies (e.g. Spain, UK)

• Only in Scotland – where an estimated one-quarter of the population gathers NWFPs – there is a dedicated NWFP policy

• NWFPs mentioned in Agriculture and Rural Development Programmes(e.g. Finland, Turkey, Scotland)

Findings (cnt’d)Background Objectives Methodology Findings Conclusions

• NWFPs are mentioned in nearly all forest policies analysed, albeit in different contexts (e.g. for conservation, food security, livelihood improvement, recreation etc.) --- testimony to their cultural or economic importance throughout the world.

• HOWEVER, although NWFPs are often mentioned, a wide variety of different terms are used, and definitions are rarely included in these policies. In many countries NWFPs are grouped together with timber as “forest products” and no clear distinction is made.

• By and large, however, NWFPs continue to be mentioned in policies as “side” activities, as evidenced by the terminology used.

• Occasionally NWFPs are mentioned in policies about biodiversity (specifically in relation to the protection of wild flora and fauna), and food safety.

WhereDifferences between private vs public

forests

In protected areas and parks the

collection is generally restricted

WhatList of species allowed/prohibited (sometimes

NWFP in general, sometimes specific species)

depends on ecologic factors and it is related to

socio-economic importance, as well as to the

perceived level of risk of overexploitation

WhoEverybody vs owner of the land

Residents vs non residents

WhyPersonal consumption vs commercial

purposes

How muchQuantity limits (kilos/ number of

floral stems etc.)

HowSpecification for the use of baskets,

rakes, for the cleaning of the NWFP on

the place of collection etc.

WhenSeason/period

Day-time

Under which requirementUse of permits, quotas, licenses,

concessions

3kg

Specific Legislation along the value chain - EU

Finland: “Everyman’s Right”

• age-old concept of Everyman’s right gives everyone the right to roam freely in the countryside

• The right also applies to NWFP collection.

• Everybody, resident in Finland or not, is allowed to pick berries, mushrooms, flowers, dry twigs and branches, cones and nuts found on the forest floor in all forests, as long as these products are not protected species.

• Fishing and hunting are not covered Everyman’s right and require relevant permits.

• Systematic data collection supports sound policies

Methodology ( EECA and LAC)

Policy Frameworks and Instruments in EECA and LAC

Findings: policies and legal frameworks in EECA

• 22 out of 25 countries mention NWFPs in forestpolicies or related strategies and programmes (or avariation like NTFPs, wild flora and fauna, secondarywood materials, side use of forest, etc.)

• No specific policy frameworks for NWFPs, as they aretreated as secondary products, “side-use” of forests,and generally picked and used by locals as an additionalsource of nutrition.

• NWFPs were mentioned in less than 50% of policies,but when mentioned, they typically are not veryspecific and rarely provide a definition.

• In contrast, 92% of countries analysed defined NWFPswithin legislation and decrees.

• Where and when NWFPs are mentioned within thepolicy and legislation of a country, terminology anddefinitions are not necessarily harmonized.

• Some countries have defined specific objectives onNWFPs highlighting the need to improve institutionalcapacities for accounting, monitoring [to prevent orreduce conversion of forests], and promoting NWFPresearch and ancestral knowledge; Bulgaria andMontenegro are two good examples.

Regional Findings for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA)

WB classification 8 high income, 11 upper-middle and 7 low-middle income

Regional

definitions includeforest side-use, wild, secondary, non-timber, non-wood, minor

Important

NWFPs

foliage, berries, mushrooms, bee products herbs, seeds, bark, resins,

dyes and craft materials, fodder/ hay, Christmas trees, game, birch

juice, snails, pine nuts, dog-rose, and truffles

Forest servicesecotourism and hunting tourism, spiritual and religious use of

forests, silvopastoral practices, and apiculture

Non-timber (non–wood) forest products - Food products, technical

and medicinal raw materials, forage grasses, as well as furs, bee

products and other products, except raw wood.

Non-timber forest resources - stumps, birch bark, bark of trees and

shrubs, twigs, spruce, fir, pine limbs, pine trees for the holidays,

moss, forest litter, reed, cane and other similar forest resources.

Food products - Animal products, bamboo shoots, berries, juice, pet

food, fruit, plants, mushrooms, nuts, oil, palms, kernels, roots, seeds,

starches.

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and their derivatives - Aromatic

substances, mucilages and resins, latex and other exudates (secreted

substances), medical extracts, tanning materials and dyes, toxins.

Decorative materials - Bark, leaves, flowers, herbs, aromatic blend of

dried flower petals.

Non-wood fibres for weaving, printing and design - Bamboo, bark,

cork, kapok (cotton tree), palm leaves, rattan, reeds, grass, soil

reinforcement.

Wild forest resources are defined in Forest Code of Russian

Federation as edible forest products like berries, mushrooms, fruit

and nut trees, shrubs, medicinal plants, birch juice, honey

productivity of plantations, and similar forest products (while NWFPs

in the Forest code are non-edible forest products).

An exception: The Russian FederationThe Russian Federation’s Forest Code provides itemised lists of what constitutes an NWFP:

Findings: policies and legal frameworks in LAC

• Over 75% of the countries make direct reference to NWFPs in their policy frameworks.

• 54% of countries provide a definition in policy documents.

• No harmonized regional definition.• Variations of NWFP terminology for

Spanish speaking countries include ‘no madereros’ and ‘no maderables’

• Five countries include services in their definition (the variation is not only linguistic, but concerns the inclusion and exclusion of forest services such as climate change mitigation, soil and water preservation and other cultural and social values).

Credit: CIFOR

Regional Findings for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

WB classification 8 high, 14 upper-middle, and 4 lower-middle income

Area information 15% of global surface area, 30% of the global precipitation, 33% of watersheds

Regional definitions

include

side-use of forest, silvester fauna and flora (wild), secondary, non-timber, non-wood,

minor

Forest services

climate change, rural poverty reduction, sustainable forest management, natural

resource management, biodiversity preservation, ancestral knowledge, value chains,

market-access, credit-access, agroforestry, forest-industry, protected area

Belize: a detailed strategy for NWFPs in the Forest Policy

• Belize’s current Forest policy (2015) notes that the focus since has been on primary hardwoods, with a “notable underutilization of NTFPs.”

• Current policy statement no.5 makes explicit reference to “encourage the sustainable use of those NTFPs with the potential for commercial exploitation while respecting their traditional and cultural use.”

• NTFP categories are listed (e.g. fruits and nuts, honey, vegetables, fish and game, medicinal plants)

• Priority actions listed including “developing guidelines for access to NTFPs; developing a comprehensive database on the species; instituting harvesting regulations for plant species of market value such as ornamental and medicinal plants

Values of NWFP derived from Policy Documents

General findingsBackground Objectives Methodology Findings Conclusions

• All of the forest policies and laws reviewed mentioned NWFPs, albeit different terms are used and definitions are not harmonized.

• Few countries have specific outputs and outcomes for NWFPs in policies.

• Many countries outline the need for better data on production, consumption, trade, and resource assessment in their policies, but only a handful of countries collect this data (e.g. Japan, Finland, S.Korea, Chile).

• Most legal frameworks, on the contrary, define what is meant by NWFPs (by product category, rarely by species) although definitions vary; this is normally to regulate use.

• Some countries have specific guidelines or strategies on NWFPs at a sub-national level but this is often related to a specific product (e.g. mushrooms, berries, game), and again to control harvest and collect royalties.

What is the challenge?

• NWFPs do not play a prominent role in forest sector policies; this hinders the potential contribution to the national sustainable development goals, including to food security and nutrition security outcomes.

• NWFPs are more “present” in forest laws, but still a wide variety of terms and definitions are used. This hinders data collection, reporting and monitoring of trends across countries and regions; it also undermines communication on NWFPs, hence the potential for future NWFP development.

• NWFP development goes beyond the forest sector, but it will be difficult to incorporate these vital products in other sectors’ policies and strategies without greater clarity on what we are talking about.

Why is it important?…NWFPs matter!

• Recent studies from Asia and Africa (21 countries) suggest a positive correlation between tree cover and more diverse and nutritious diets. (Sunderland et al.,2106; Ickowitzet al. 2014 ).• In the Congo Basin wild meat from forests provides an estimated 5 million metric tonnesof dietary protein to rural poor, b/w 30-50% (Nasiet al. 2011)• In the Congo Basin, children are the primary consumers of forest fruits, generally eaten raw. Many of these fruits constitute excellent sources of vitamins and micronutrients (FAO, 2016). • In Madagascar, a study determined that removing access to wildlife would lead to three-fold increase in anemia cases among poor children (Golden et al. 2011)


Credit: FAO

Outlook – NWFPs and the SDGs

How else can we make these connections in practice?

…Over to you!